Libcucks pls respond

How do you plan to stop fascism without the 2nd amendment?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=7KlT4YXyNGA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

With catchy chants and angry tweets mostly.

When you enforce your constitutional rights, the fascists win.

By chanting "He will not divide us" on to a web camera live stream next to a band of vapid nobodies and high schoolers.

Dildos.

If you kill your enemies they win

Well we in Europe don't have to worry about that too much cause the state isn't that strong. Most police are unarmed and government with the consent of the people. Wouldn't be too hard to overthrow if grievances warranted that.

The thing with the States is your situation becomes the new normal. The fact is your police are insanely militarized and act like weekend warriors. Pretty pathetic how geared up they are. There's zero chance you could overthrow the government. Your National Guard would crush any uprisings which it has done in the past with Miner's strikes

But yeah keep telling yourselves a bunch of fat fucks in militias that have .303's and some semi automatic pistols can take on the combined might of trained professionals. This isn't the revolutionary wars any more

If Americans upheld the 4th Amendment they wouldnt have to worry about the 2nd Amendment

America might as well be a colony of the UK

For example, the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches – defined in sane terms and plain English as any non-specific search of people at random, who’ve not done anything to suggest they may have committed a crime. Fishing expeditions, in other words.

The idea was that the government should have to – in the first place – substantiate suspicion. It wasn’t enough for a cop to say – I don’t like your looks. He had to be able to articulate some definite thing (evidence) that gave him reason to believe you had committed or were about to commit a crime.

Today, cops stop people at random, without any specific cause at all. Without even having to say they don’t like their looks. It is enough that they are cops. And that you are not.

It was once the case that prior to a physical search of your property, it was legally necessary to obtain a search warrant – a piece of paper issued by a judge, who was supposed to issue the thing only if the investigator asking for it could present some definite thing (evidence) that supported his asserted suspicion of criminal activity. And the warrant had to be specific, stating clearly who was to be searched and what and where. This was to prevent something that used to be routine in the colonies under the British – the general writ, which empowered King George’s minions to search anyone, anywhere for anything.

>airsoft

Today’s redcoats wear blue (and lately, black). They search whomever, whatever, whenever.

We are even coerced into witnessing against ourselves via threats that failure to do will bring down separate charges and punishments.

The change occurred gradually but has become a juggernaut for the simple reason that precedent becomes routine. Once accepted, an affront is forgotten. It not only becomes accepted – it becomes acceptable to do it again. (Which, as an aside, is why this Obamacare business is so important. If it stands, if Trump does not repeal – not replace – it, it is certain we will shortly be forced to also buy other forms of government-mandated insurance; for example gun insurance, if you want to own a gun.)

But when did it begin to become acceptable?

Probably when the Supreme Court gutted the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to placate “moms” who were “mad” about drunk driving. This was back in the ’80s, when it was still legally necessary for a cop to have specific probable cause – weaving across the double yellow, for instance – before he could turn on his lights and pull you over.

It's like you've never heard of the Iraq War.

go back to oiling your dragon dildo with cosmoline, /k/

This of course made it inconvenient to arrest and cage people who may have had some drinks but were not “drunk.” Back then, you could drink and drive and – provided your driving gave no cause to suggest impairment – you were free to continue driving.

Apparently, competent driving aggravates people who are in fact much more opposed to drinking.

And so, checkpoints – dragnet style. At which every single driver would be (and is) forced to stop and – in blatant Fourth and Fifth Amendment rape – submit to a random (and thus, unreasonable) search and prove they are not drunk, according to an arbitrary standard (BAC level) without the cops having to even assert that their actual driving was somehow “impaired.”

LOVE TRUMPS HATE

It must be awful just now waking up from a 70 year coma.

It also became the legal obligation of the people forced to stop at these checkpoints to provide evidence to be used against themselves in a criminal prosecution. The court ruled that you must submit to various tests supposedly designed to establish drunkenness and that failure to provide evidence was (and is) a crime in itself. The burden of obtaining evidence was lifted off the shoulders of the accuser – who could now claim that failure to provide it amounted to proof of guilt.

Even if it is later determined – as a result of the various tests, which you may be forced to submit to (including forced blood draws) that you were not, in fact, “drunk” (and perhaps had not been drinking at all) you will still be prosecuted for your failure to assist in your own prosecution.

The court came up with a truly Orwellian concept they called implied consent – which is like sort-of rape.

Why would I stop it?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=7KlT4YXyNGA

I know the distinction you are making. But modern life in the US is too comfy. Why would you give up your job, wifi and everything else to overthrow the State? Life in Iraq and Afghanistan is shit. Shit dying in as a martyr Jihad against the kuffar is the most meaningful thing those reprobates can do in their short shitty life.

You either consented – or you didn’t.

The courts saying you have given implied consent to be stopped and searched at random by dint of driving, or because you got a driver’s license (which you had to get) is an outrage upon words as much as it is upon rights. How is it any different than asserting a woman who has gone out on a date with a man has consented to have sex with him? If anything, it’s even more outrageous in the case of driving and implied consent, because in the case of the couple, they both agreed to the date part of the thing.

No court would enforce a contract upon you whose terms you had not freely consented to. A contract agreed to under duress – that is, under coercion – or which contains codicils you, the signer, are not made aware of prior to signing, is by definition not binding.

Except when the court decrees otherwise – because “moms” were “mad.” And also because it opened the door to more and worse, which I am certain was the true purpose. Have you been to an airport recently? I assume you know that literally every keystroke you make, every site you surf, every search, your emails and Skypes and phone calls and texts are all of them recorded, the “data” used to profile and keep track of quite literally everything you do, even though you’ve done nothing illegal to warrant it.

It had to begin somewhere.

Arguably, it began some thirty years ago, when it became ok to stop motorists at random in the name of apprehending drunk drivers. Henceforth, all drivers would be presumed drunk until they proved otherwise.

Is it really surprising that we are now also presumed to be terrorists until proved otherwise? At the airport, online.

What are on about user?

Everywhere.

Voila, we find ourselves living in an authoritarian state in which making it easier for the government to arrest and successfully prosecute people for something, for anything is considered desirable. As opposed to the old American idea that people ought to be free to be left alone unless they have given damn good reason to suspect they’ve committed a crime of some kind. That the burden of proof ought to be on the government rather than proving one’s innocence the obligation of the citizenry.

But these are ideas that seems as quaint today as free association or using cash to pay for things and being allowed to actually own things without having to pay taxes in perpetuity to maintain the fiction that we own those things.

Maybe one day our children will recover the sense we appear to have lost.

...

Liberals do not want to stop fascism, they just want their guy/gal in charge.

Well, sort of awake.

You are schizophrenic. I can tell by your retardedly convoluted train of thought.

>what is the entire middle east conflict
>what is the Second Indo-China War (Vietnam War)

Try harder.

Look at my second point cuck. The thing with those countries is life is shit and the sacrifice is worth giving for them to improve their lot. Do you really thing people in fucking Pennsylvania are willing to get carpet bombed? Or go drilling in the mountains (?) when you can fucking play PS4 and watch Dancing with the Stars

Well then you had niggers and that went out the window

>replies to self
>"you are schizophrenic"

Yep, you sure are.

>Points out typo
>Smiles europhicly to himself
>I showed him.
>Farts
>Breathes deeply the noxious frankincense, the elixir of the holies.
>Exhales happily

kys

Do you know how many vietnamese we actually fought against versus how many of our troops died? Keep in mind, the NVA were NOT ONLY fighting us, and a small amount of other forces from other countries, but the entire other half of their own country. Lots of people wouldn't fight in a second U.S. revolution you are right about that part, but that implies that every single person who doesn't fight is a dumb goy on a government leash, which is untrue. Many people are increasingly become uncertain of their governments intentions in this past year alone. The Vietnamese that were pro-commie that didn't fight aided the NVA through other means. Revolution isn't just all bang bang shoot shoot, their are other nuances.

I love how the US got their asses handed to them. Beaten by literally peasants who lived in holes and I supposed to feel sorry for your armed forces
>Fat murican get's PTSD from shooting so many gooks
>Americans are the real victim in this

Or that retarded movie with Bradley Cooper or the one with Mark Wahlberg where the Navy Seals got killed by the Tailiban. In reality it was like 4-6 taliban who killed a load of Navy Seals and Chris Kyle was a liar about half the shit he did.

Don't get me wrong I love you guys, love America but your movies rub me up the wrong way sometimes

>I

Id say for all antifia to stop working and bring the economy to a hault....but

They don't have any jobs in the first place

>SEE MY ARGUMENT KEK
>*posts rebuttal*
>"h-haha, fuck a-merica right ga-guise...?"

Btfo.

>I love you guys, love America
Why? America is a shitty country.

By fucking your women

Really isn't not memeing
>Fantastic defence of free speech
>National Parks are the greatest thing. Majestic
>People of the South/Midwest fucking awesome. Salt of the earth would give you the shirt of there back
>Made massive strides in technology ie. computer chips etc.
> Constitution was a incredible document, very farsighted and noble in its intent.

I spent time in the US. I have great affection for the place but I kinda hate aspects of it. Suppose that comes when you know any country very well

Are you guys even a real country?

Not a libcuck but the 2nd amendment here is only the final check against tyrannical rule.

The most effective counterbalance to the threat of tyranny, the antidote, is a strong and involved middle class. We need to save capitalism from the Oligarch globalists and reinvigorate the middle class, open up ballot laws so John Q. Public can run with minimal state interference.